standard, we simply have to share that insight we have acquired and urge the other nations of the world in a structured framework to follow that in order to ensure those countries and their citizens, who we have heard described today, suffer from the lack of this kind of statute. they're right thank you. >> he raised a question that many have raised and i think it concerns that deserves a considered answer. i think it deserves a considered answer. we will not impose any new obligations on the united states since we already have the highest standard in the world, our advocacy is virtue by signing on and ratifying that it puts us in the addition to get the world to move in the direction so that tammy

will be ablemark to travel anywhere and have a greater likelihood that they have the access to fulfill their god-given potential whether it is in a job, business, advocacy and they will be able to achieve. american businesses who already lead the world in terms of accessibility standards, that will be the standard that others adopt so that the football player from rutgers who has this able tolchair will be travel other places and will likely be having the other access. that is why the ratification of the treaty expands our reach and advocacy not simply by reflection of looking at with the united states does but its advocates. it's a very good question that has been raised and it deserves a full answer. >> chairman, could i offer a few

-- cardin and we will get you to work it in. .- senator cardin >> i will try to leave you time. from the written statement which i think is a very appropriate. you should not be so proud to think that we could not learn from other countries about how to meet the challenges of providing even better opportunity for people with disabilities. it does not mean we change our laws. we learn how to do things better. that is part of being an anernational community in effort to help people with disabilities. i also want to a knowledge my colleagues you has been a great help when i came to the house of representatives on this and other issues. tony, it's good to see you. ms.so want to recognize

roadhouse who is in the audience from maryland. amputee andateral wears prosthetic legs traveling to over 40 countries and knows the barriers in study, work, and travel abroad. nice to have you with us. mr. chairman, and i guess chairmanhornburgh, ridge, i will give you the chance to answer. we all acknowledge the treaty is based on u.s. law, the ada. 1990.sed it in in 1991, the then chairman of the u.s. helsinki commission travel to moscow and became part of the moscow declaration document which started the international effort to use u.s. law as the model to protect

universally the rights of people with disabilities. would raise,t i the failure to ratify, i think, compromises the u.s. possibility to advance the standards globally. it weakens our own credibility. as the chairman and others have pointed out, it also compromises very much american citizens other countries. we are certainly not in the same position as we would for the rights of people in our own country. ?our comments generally e regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. if america was considered to be

a product, and we do try to sell our product overseas, what is our brand? think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law, our value system. under that brand and value , there is the thinking of equal in the eyes of the law. to be the one you convene around that is elemental in nature the rights of people globally with disabilities, i think we enhance the brand down the product by enhancing our self. we say to the rest of the world, let's think about it from their point of view. we're asking them to adopt the american standard.

it's pretty tough to do. with the ratification of 100 plus countries, on this common issue regardless of where they are, they like the brand. they like the value system. he went to elevate the rights of people with disabilities. the gentleman behind me is from the kane institute for international leadership, a inarkable young man disabled 2000 three and established an organization in the country of georgia. he's working on ratification and he will be the first one to tell that georgia will see whether america ratifies the treaty. i suggest that regardless of where we are in the political aisle, we all have an interest in promoting america and promoting the brand than the value system has as much of a lasting impact of anything we could do diplomatically and

there's nowhere better to convene and lead that discussion globally than the united nations. it's a very appropriate question, senator johnson. there is great value, globally, internationally. we don't sacrifice sovereignty or change laws to advance our interest and we advance our brand and value system. inc. you for giving me an opportunity to share this thought with you. -- thank you for giving me an opportunity. >> effective i could follow-up with regards to the case that the supreme court is currently hearing, mr. thornburgh, really surprised when you heard the federal government was using each read your convention in gainstto bring charges a someone against the chemical weapons treaty? were you surprised it was used

in this fashion? >> yes. ,> if you're surprised by that what can reassure us that you will not read surprised that this treaty is used for a similar purpose? >> by that time, the supreme court would have thrown out the basis for it. >> the fact that it is even brought and survived one challenge -- that it saidtion the say the department of justice does not always act wisely. there are occasions when the pursuit made in of cases and controversies that really don't rise to the level where appropriate. there are examples on the other side as well and that is where the department has rightfully stretched the law in these situations but clearly were not contemplated.

i'm thinking particularly of the rodney king case for example where he was ultimately convicted under the federal the polices laws, officer was convicted, excuse me. was a police brutality case, not civil rights, but we maintain the flexibility that we could use an particular situation where the occasion arises but i don't anticipate that happening on a day-to-day basis under a treaty like the human treaty. we clearly have to put some semblance of judgment and confidence into the judgment of our lawmakers and those of our lawmakers and those who execute them. they make mistakes. there is a mistaken the chemical warfare case is a clear example. >> governor ridge, were you surprised to hear that case? >> it was brought to my

attention and i would not know enough to comment. based on the experience of an individual i respect enormously who is seated to my right, i align myself with his response. we all know from my recent questionedas we have them on more recent occasions and i don't think there could ever be any guarantee that there would not potentially be any litigation. we live in a litigious society. someone may take it to court. we should expect better judgment. >> we should. we have a tough time legislating a lot of other things let alone judgment. we will never be able to do that. if you make perfect the enemy of good and you conclude that legislation will undermine this, i just have not drawn that conclusion from what i have

read, but i cannot draw an analogy or comparison between the present case before the supreme court and this treaty. it surprised the heck out of me that the federal government was using this. it would also surprise me if it works its way through the supreme court and they agreed with the department of justice. wheng said that, assurances are being made in this hearing and elsewhere by those that this would never be used as a basis to hold anyone in the u.s. to account for this then that rings pretty hollow today when this case is being heard by the supreme court. i would think that it would behoove us, at least, to see. , you say you're

surprised. we would all be surprised at the supreme court ruled this way as well. howould behoove us to see they rule before we go ahead with this. that is just the way i feel here. i tend to discount some of the claims about the use supply and i have my own questions about whether it is worth it simply because we are saying on one hand it matters a lot and on the other it really doesn't. what's the use of a treaty if it's treated like that? here, i think we are all surprised that the action at the department of justice here and i think we have to see how the supreme court rules before moving ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just an observation. i understand the senators concerns. i appreciate it. the justice department has prosecuted cases on federal statutes, not the implementation

of treaties knowing far afield of what the federal government intended and and has nothing to do with the treaty. the supreme court turned provisions of what prosecutions were so you could never totally departmenthe justice is -- >> judgment will be affected at the end of the day. that is the example of a non- treaty piece of legislation used in an inappropriate way for prosecution as the first spring court determined -- as the supreme court determined. the case has been raised several times and i think there is a bit of a differentiation here that should the considered. this involves congress shall authority under both the commerce clause -- congressional authority under commerce and other clauses. it would not be relevant to u.s. implementation because the ada does not rely on the treaty power.

it was passed before the disabilities convention had ever been negotiated. the commerce clause analysis the chemical weapons implementation is unlikely to be relevant to the ada. the statute has been extensively litigated in the supreme court. i understand the concern, but i think the right differentiation's in this respect. >> at the gentleman would yield? nothing to dohas with the commerce cause under the treaty here, but second, i would just say the certainty with which we are all saying that this will not apply to us a bit by the bond case. that's all i'm saying. >> i appreciate that. i'm simply saying as in that other case, it has nothing to do with the treaty. the supreme court found elements of how it was used to prosecute people was an overreach and unconstitutional yet you cannot protect against that until you get to the supreme court which is why we have a supreme court.

case hask the bond three elements to it. it has the treaty power but it also has questions that arise under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. in that respect it's a little different. continue this because we raise this issue as if it stops us cold. we cannot go forward in this disability convention until we work out this bond case. i would say to professor meyer and mr. thornburgh but i think there is a clear distinction here. the bond case is not being raised under the treaty, the convention, when it comes to chemical weapons. it is being prosecuted under the implementation act, a separate act of congress implementing the treaty. .wo different things when we come to the disability act, what is the implementation act under the convention for disabilities?

there is none. the only implementation we have is the americans with disabilities act which has been on the books for 20 years. we tested that. hasn't eliminated homeschooling? i don't think so. has it mandated abortion across america? no, it has not. the americans with disabilities act is the implementation act that we have adopted ahead of the treaty on disabilities. dealing with the implementation act on the twoention weapons treaties, separate things. one ratifying the convention on chemical weapons and two passing a law, the implementation act, the law of the land and now the supreme court will decide if that law is proper. conflating these two and saying it's all about the same thing, what about risk -- one of our scholarly colleagues said in a piece in "the washington post,

"if it can be used to prosecute americans regardless of the ramifications could be alarming ." he goes on. the prosecution is not under a treaty. it is under the implementation act. it's different. it is a law of congress. i am just stopped cold here with americansent that the with disabilities act will put an end to homeschooling in america. is that your position? >> that's not my position. my position is the treaty changes the legal requirements in this country and it's not correct to say that there is no duty to change american law in accordance with the treaty. be a i believe there will limitation act required i think at that point in time, that is when the problems will arise. that thect administration is not asking for

an implementation act and made it clear that they are not seeking one because the americans with disability act already is controlling and has been extensively litigated setting disability standards in our country which are higher than any in the world, you don't find that convincing? is the same administration prosecuting a homeschooling family trying to expel them for the united states . >> under the ada? >> they came here under the law of asylum. the question in the case pending, that is also before the supreme court. don't know what -- >> if i could answer the question asked? >> you want to talk about something other than the americans against disabilities act in the convention of disabilities. >> it has a different legal standard than the ada. there are numerous disability organization to say so and i include their citations in my

written testimony. i'm not the only one who says that. agrees the committee with me. >> if we are going to have a battle of organizations according and not supporting this, we have the mainstream disability organizations across america who are supporting the adoption of this convention on disabilities. thatuggle with the notion we are somehow going to stop this effort to extend the rights to disabled around the world in the fear of something which you cannot even clearly articulate when it comes to homeschooling. i don't know whether to call him congressman or secretary, but we have been friends in both capacities. what he has said, he supports homeschooling and i do, too. this will not affect it. it's very clear that it will not and the americans disability act for 20 years has not. i yield back my time. mccain, i extend my

appreciation for his advocacy in this effort and it has been an invaluable voice in this regard. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all of the witnesses. mr. thornburgh and mr. ridge. i'm sure you prefer governor. [laughter] nostalgia with great the then president of united states, herbert walker bush, signed the disabilities act on the lawn and so many of our friends from the disability community was there to celebrate i don't know, anyone who does not believe that the passage of that act was not an unqualified success. it gave opportunities for some of our disabled community to get ahead in our society and have

rights which they previously had been deprived of. , you have made some constructive legislation and i would just like to ask you a couple of additional questions. on the issue of abortion, the resolution of advice and consent that this committee passed last year contains the following understanding on how this treaty relates to u.s. law concerning abortion. "nothing in the convention, including article 25, addresses any particular health program or procedure. do you think that is sufficient to address concerns raised about what effect this treaty might have on the u.s. laws and policies regarding abortion? if not, how would you recommend that we improve that provision that we adopted last year? >> i believe that secretary

ridge mentioned, we live in a litigious country and one cannot guarantee that there will never be a lawsuit especially since the convention creates abortion rights. >> do you have suggested language that could strengthen that to lessen the likelihood? >> yes. with respect to the role of the committee, i think the language that is referenced in my written testimony or similar language that makes clear that the committee's interpretation of the convention are not entitled to any weight whatsoever, or any difference, from example u.s. courts, could go a long way towards ushering that federal courts are not going to be able to prone to following interpretations that the committee might adopt that, for example, the congress would find objectionable. the language you

referenced, the convention in , is a nondiscrimination convention to a very large extent. it does not reference in or anylar the language particular procedure. it just states that there shall be no discrimination. >> i would appreciate specific language if you could submit to us. obviously abortion is a huge aspect of this issue with many americans. it may affect the judgment of some members of this committee. i want to close that as tightly as we can recognizing that there .ay always be some challenges i think you see my point. >> i do. i would be happy to read to you the language on the understanding that i think might help address the role of the committee. might, for example, include

language that states, the committee's interpretation of the convention are not entitled to any weight apart from that event to them by states parties to the convention. one can imagine modifying that, specifically referencing federal courts. one could imagine modifying that language to specifically statesce that the united understands that there shall be no weight given within u.s. courts unless the united states has adopted an interpretation consistent with its domestic procedures regarding the creation of international obligations. >> i hope that maybe we can look at that language as we move theard and need to ensure pro-life community, obviously, that this would not have any .ffect on present u.s. policy mr. meyer, do you see any serious restriction of parents rights regarding the education of their children as a result of

the treaties that we have ratified, as you know, the convention on the rights of a child, children and armed onflict, optional protocol children in armed conflict, i guess he? have you seen any serious restriction or violation of the rights of parents regarding the education of their children as a result of these previously senate-ratified treaties? >> i'm not aware of any. >> would you agree that the senate could ratify this in a way that protects the prerogatives of parents to reaffirm the primacy of u.s. law, just as we have in these other instances? >> it's possible that there is something that would satisfy these concerns. seeight now, do you sufficient language or should we have additional language? >> additional language with respect to the role of the committee would be helpful in addressing

some of these concerns going forward. i think, also, i mentioned to senator corker, one could imagine a federalism point or reservations to deal with the federalism issue, but i think they can be drafted. of time, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. good testimony of the questions have been helpful. one of the reasons i love being assigned to this committee as a new senator is the mission statement is pretty simple. american leadership in the world is really the mission statement of this committee. that is a combination of and moralmilitary, leadership. we have, as a country, shown great moral leadership on the those withghts of disability. rehabilitation act of 1973,

the education for all handicapped children, 1975, individuals with disability education act 1990, americas of the disability act and there are others as well. these are significant and they really do set a gold standard for the world and i think it's appropriate for us to make it part of our brand, governor ridge, and brag about it in the way you mentioned. entering into this treaty would be good for our citizens with disabilities, good for citizens around the world, but also come adjust to my colleagues, really. i think it would be good for this body, the senate, and our committee. this is one of those issues where i think the venn diagram overlapping between the various partisan positions is near complete. i cannot help but notice as i was looking at the dates of the passage of all four of those seminal statutes with respect to disability rights all passed and signed by the public and

presidents. 73, nixon. president bush. 41. this is an issue where it's not what you normally see a pier where democrats want to do something and republicans don't. this has traditionally been about as a bipartisan issue that you find in modern public policy in american life. i think we ought not to sacrifice that. i think senator mccain's andtion for professor meyer attorney general thornburgh's questions about the drafting and trying to make sure that we can solve some of the internal concerns that are fairly raced , we shouldt process diligently make an effort to do that. this has been such a good example and where we have been together and exercise leadership in the right way.

we should sacrifice the opportunity -- we should not sacrifice the opportunity to lead in this particular area. i appreciate all of those who have testified today and i yield back my time. quick senator barrasso, also a strong supporter of the ratification. >> i went to congratulate you. i thought that was an excellent ."-ed in the "usa today i appreciate your efforts and i just want to thank all of you for being here today to discuss this important issue. as a physician who practiced medicine for over 25 years, i have seen firsthand the challenges facing those with disabilities and every individual should have an opportunity to work, live, and fully take part in our society. united states has been the leader in working to end discrimination and break down barriers that prevent the full participation. >> i want to thank secretary

ridge for joining us. we ate knowledge dan agreed yet a plane to catch. there may be questions on the record and a follow-up and we would ask you to answer them. senator barrasso, i'm sorry. >> as we know and discussed, congress passed the americans with disability act and this convention is based on the same principles as the americans with disabilities act including nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, independence, accessibility, human dignity have a full and effective participation and inclusion in society. the people of this great nation believe in these ideals and principles. it is time for our nation to stand up and show our commitment to these principles in the international community. i believe this offers the united states a for them to utilize our wealth, knowledge, and practical experiences to influence other nations in recognizing the rights of people with disabilities. we have the opportunity to the removal of

obstacles and opening barriers to end up helping our citizens in the process. ratification demonstrates our nation's ongoing commitment to equality and opportunity for individuals with disabilities. this convention is supported by more than 760 disability groups, 20 veteran service organizations including the american legion, veterans of foreign wars, wounded warriors project, the u.s. chamber of commerce, colin chairman menendez, i have a letter from general colin powell and rather than read the whole thing i ask unanimous consent to have it included. >> without objection. >> just a couple of quick questions. has beengeneral, there some misinformation regarding the impact of this legislation on children. does it take away parents rights? doesn't allow courts to interfere with rights with children?

this article six specifically requiring national registry of children born with disabilities? registry anticipated is pretty similar to the laws we have in this country which require birth and death certificates be taken note of and enrolled. interestingly enough, many countries around the world are lacking today that kind of procedure. threat in many of the worst situations around for improper abortion techniques or infanticide even. i view this as an advance because of the state of local level we have these, but when you read in the headlines about the kinds of things that are going on in lesser developed

countries where dictators flout the law, i think this is a very positive part of the treaty requirements that we could support easily. >> thank you. >> in your testimony you said having the opportunity to nominate an american to serve on the committee and appear before the committee is an effective way to ensure that the committee does not become a vehicle for creating international legal obligations contrary to u.s. interests. could you further explain why you think it is in the u.s. interest to have an american serving on the committee created by this convention? >> one of the ways in which the committee can have a legal effect even though its recommendations are nonbinding is through the creation of customary international law. the committee clearly does not have the power to create it, but its recommendations that other states react and adopt, there can be a basis for a claim that

there is customary international law therefore the opportunity for the united states to appear to object to interpretations of the committee that might be thought to give rise to obligations could potentially that thee formation united states would view as unacceptable. there are examples of this occurring in the context of, for example, the human rights thatttee taking positions certain rules of the state department they are not agreeing with. not ratifying the convention does not remove the ability to object to the formation of rules of customary or international either ran likewise, with effect to u.s. courts, it reduces the likelihood that a u.s. court would find there to be a rule of customary international law but to answer your question, the ability to have an american to nerve on -- to serve on the

committee and the ability to actually engage with the committee likely affects the committee's work and may serve to actually ensure that those adopted are consistent with the american and option interpretation. >> thank you. it's great to have tammy duckworth here, an american hero . she is in a wheelchair and in 1990, we passed the ada to make sure that there were ramps for those wheelchairs everywhere in our country. it would be great if she could go anywhere in the world as well and know that we are moving in that same direction. thank you so much for your service. back in 1990 when we did the ada, i was the chairman of the telecommunications committee so closed captioning for tv sets, and assuring that the phone system is available for deaf and

blind people as well. in the 1996 telecom act, we extended that as well. 2010, i authored with cliff stearns, a very conservative republican, and we were able to pass a law that says every one of these wireless devices needed to have an on ramp and we had to negotiate with the consumer electronics association, this massive organization of thousands of companies because they had to sign off on it. now the deaf and blind can use these devices to matter where they are. wouldn't that be a good thing if that was true for the whole world? but all deaf and blind had the ability? to ask attorney general this question -- attorney general thornburgh this

question. what does it mean to have an open market for all of these devices that would be available to hundreds of millions of deaf and blind who would be empowered to be part of their economies? is toask the question answer it. >> not in congress. the words have to be spoken. i understand what you're saying. you believe the truth to be self-evident but we are having this hearing. like i did not mean to be facetious. it would open up markets that are unavailable now either of the governing process of the country in question or a lack of resources or what have you. you get a consensus about the does liability and feasibility of these things and you can see remarkable advances taking place around the world which ought to be the business we are in. >> the consumer electronics association has written a letter of support for the treaty stating that the u.s. ratification of the treaty would

encourage greater demand for u.s. companies skills and services as fellow nations begin to adhere to the new international standards. there should be no doubt, and other words, that this is a great economic benefit for american companies as well. of course we want to help all of those who are deaf and blind. that's the point of my law, to make it possible. we have to lead because we passed a law first. pretty soon, every citizen on the planet will have one of these devices and wouldn't it be great if we were ensuring they were accessible to the deaf and blind as well? made in united states have already complied with that lie and i think it would be something that we would think would actually be in our best interests.

there are several countries, including china, australia, argentina, who have already submitted reports to the disability committee and i understand the chinese admitted they have a long way to go to protect the rights and interests of persons with disabilities. if the chinese got serious about ensuring access to disabled persons, that would open up a huge market for the united states, would it not? >> indeed. market would the open all of those markets, wouldn't you agree that a vote for ratification is a vote to support american businesses and create jobs here in the united states? that's whyperhaps the chamber of commerce supports the treaty ratification. now, no one from united states is sitting on the disabilities committee. if we had a delegate on that committee, do you think that would help u.s. businesses to expand their markets overseas? >> yes.

>> would it not help in creating rules and regulations that would inused in order to expand other countries? >> one would expect. >> congresswoman duckworth. >> i think the extent of u.s. firms isfor really underestimated right now. we do the adaptive advice industry and it is a charm and display large one and one that we certainly dominate in the world. we are not talking about just --nes but wheelchair will accessible buses, homeschooling supplies for those who want to teach their kids at home. the range is tremendous. if we do not do this and american companies don't gain credibility as being the world's leader, we open the door for other nations who are competing with us in these fields, germany and iceland, where they do have industries and companies that provide adaptive devices as well.

we will lose the market share. >> annie sullivan helped helen keller to teacher. but now we have moved from the palm to the palm pilot to the iphone and beyond. without that, they are not empowered. we are doing something good for the planet as well. we're making sure we give people the ability to maximize their voice. without these devices around the thed, they already have capacity to be able to communicate and work. this is the essential agreement of citizenship on the planet if you want to be a productive person and that makes it possible for the first time in history for every deaf and blind person to fully participate in the economy of the country. it would be wrong to deny around

companies the ability to make these products and to create jobs here in america. you can't do good and do well at the same time by supporting this treaty. >> i just have some final questions. farris, you say this is the issue" for future political campaigns. is this because this is such a good divisive political issue for you that you have made some of the claims about the treaty that you have made? isn't why you stated the treaty proponents have a sort of soviet agenda? and your organization has made, what many of us think how much outrageous claims that the u.n. will determine how many parking spots are at american churches? , ithe wedge issue comment

believe this treaty would be the first in a line of human rights treaties coming before this committee. senator mccain misspoke, i'm sure, earlier. we have not ratified the treaty. i think that would be coming next. elimination ofl all forms against women would be coming next. i think this treaty is the first of many that would be in this range. that was what was intended by this comment. on the parking space,, you have hypothetical -- parking space ofment, you have a lot hypotheticals. if there is no definition of disability and to give this organization the ability to define it, anything is possible. i was making an extreme case to show that anything is possible. >> i agree you are trying to make an extreme case.

on the wedge issue, you're not talking about a whole host of other treaties. you were talking about this treaty, the social story of washington gridlock. on the question of the parking lot reference, which you yourself say is an extreme example, the organization you are affiliated with, issuealrights.org, they 15 things you have wrong with the treaty. issue two, the number of handicap spaces required at your business, school, will be established by your u.n. and not your local government. i would like to submit that article for the record, without objection. i can understand and respect your view, even though i disagree with it, but when a statement like that is made, i think it undermines the credibility of the nature of how

far one could take this treaty. let me ask you something else. parentheseseven, two of this treaty. it states that all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interest a primaryld should be consideration. that seems like an incredibly noncontroversial statement to me. testimony last year as well. can you give me one example about why a child with disability should not be a primary consideration? a legal term of art and it means the government gets to substitute its judgment for that of the parent. >> that is your interpretation. quoting president geraldine van buren, the international expert of rights

of a child. >> let's look at the convention says. it says nothing about the state setting into the shoes of the parent. article 23 describes, in detail, protecting parental rights and the rights of the extended makey to care for and decisions for children's with disability. i'm dumbfounded how you can make a noncontroversial statement and twisted into something that is rather sinister. treaty theic e iccpr, the language is missing. if the language was in the treaty, we would be in a different position. this is a historical practice. there's no direct statement about parents rights and education in this treaty. this is a legal term of art that has been used by the german high court to take parents children

away from them if they homeschool them. >> this is not a german high court. this is the united states of america. the only high court i care about is the supreme court of the united states. let me ask you this finally. you quoted him as a buttress for your legal arguments and i appreciate you have an llm from london, which i understand is a distance learning course - [gavel] there are no comments permitted before the committee of approvals or disapproval's. they can ignore the declarations. as a matter fact, some of the most conservative lawyers m, sinced that, in su

the early days of the nation, the president and senate have attached a variety of conditions to their consent to treaties. no one has ever invalidated these conditions. quotey, when you professor hentgen, you suggest that he would not have supported ratifying this treaty. >> he would support ratification. >> i'm glad we agree. >> a number of internationalists would support it. they think it's good that we submit the united states to the supervision of the international community. i don't. we at least agree on the operation of international law. they're having an international law in obligation. we disagree about if this is good or bad. american self-government as part of the brand we should be exploring. why heree and that is he do argue that the treaty

creates obligations of others do not see. in the new suggest that the united states must follow your interpretations in terms of ratifying the treaty. i think we have a fundamental disagreement here. , the the constitution reservations, understandings, and declarations of advice and consent are what are binding. i ask unanimous consent to include a legal memo to set the record straight on the advocacy. he would have recognized that just because the united states bought is adequate to comply with the treaty is not a good reason not to ratify. he would have supported the treaty, and my view, because it advances human rights and makes us full participants in the treaty. the fact is the human rights institute, which he founded, and

the human rights first organization, on which he served up its board of directors, both support the treaty. we just have a fundamental to what, in as fact, will be our obligations and what will be the reach. i believe that homeschoolers will be absolutely fine. i know there is money raised on this issue. it is a wedge issue, but it will modify homeschoolers because there is very broad support for homeschool. >> thank you, senator menendez. thank you for convening this hearing to consider the conventions, rights for persons with disabilities. bipartisanship as a starkly been the hallmark of american leadership protecting the rights of persons him and in particular the rights of persons with disabilities. i was proud to have the opportunity to work with you, senator mccain, senator durbin,

senator barrasso, and others in the last congress. ratification will serve to solidify equal opportunity for disabled persons through increased access, mobility, and protection of our disabled americans abroad, especially when did veterans. promoting the rights has historically garnered the support of a very broad range of americans. i'm hopeful the senate can come together to protect dignity for all by ratifying it in this congress. last year he missed a great opportunity to ratify this and it is my hope that we do not make that same mistake again. to miss theford t opportunity and i encourage those of us who may vote again to ratify. if i might, first, congresswoman duckworth, thank you for your service and your inspiring story of perseverance, engagement, and

continued service. i got to be able to be here for your testimony earlier. america'sew, how is failure to ratify this treaty impacting our leadership on disability issues globally? >> thank you, senator. i travel to asia earlier this talk tore i went to disability rights groups and talk about what's being done in the united states. one of the first questions asked by the rank and file people was tot americans did not vote ratify the convention. sitting in that room is a representative of the united states and i had nothing to say except that we were going to work on it and try to ratify it soon. it allows me to recover for my injuries and live the life that i live and serve my nation but

it could not do that with authority. one of the first questions i was asked, are you going to ratify it? i had egg on my face. if we are going to lead the world, this is in so many areas. we dominate the world in athletics. we have the olympics coming up. olympianses, our hero olympians, a lot of them are wounded warriors and we are really elevating the sport around the world. anywhere there is one, they must make the venues wheelchair and 88 accessible. because of the participation -- ada accessible. i will now be able to go and see the great wall of china which was never accessible before. the way we can touch the world is endless.

we go in with a lack of credibility because we have not ratified this treaty. we should get the head of the table and we are not. ask mr. attorney general, thank you for your active work in supporting this. what have been some of the resident results in the crpd in countries that have ratified so far? has it made progress in promoting disability standards? what difference does it make? difficult tobly quantify it at this early stage precisely what differences have been made. you heard today from any number evidence ofecdotal the change in the prospects for change that clearly will flow from our leadership role on this . thisnk a good project for

committee, if i may be so bold, .ould be to catalog i do not have any particular and the site but i think you have put staff who could perhaps together a compilation from around the world of the kinds of positive changes. with no compunction that it would show a mighty impressive record. it's early in the game yet come a i think, if you use that for a basis of judgment. i would be greatly surprised if there were not marvelous stories to be able to share with the public. >> a last chairman if i might, mr. chairman? >> attorney general and professor meyer, it was just in the last exchange that if we were to ratify this treaty we would be submitting the united states to "the supervision of the international community."

aes that strike you characterization of the american sovereignty that we would be submitting to the supervision of the international community? >> i heard the claim made before and searched the record for any indication that it is either intended or possible given the current posture of the deliberations on the convention of this body. it's a realistic assessment. it's a bit alarmist and good propaganda. this is not a country that will to any worldwide body. we show our independence in any number of bodies. why we would choose to roll over on an issue where we have such a leadership role established already is unthinkable to me. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. would we beyer,

compromising our sovereignty by submitting to the global community or by leading and demonstrating our commitment? >> the characterization that we would be submitting for supervision would be an overstatement. the community does not have any legal authority to compel changes to federal law. provided there is an appropriate package, we would be in a position to say that congress and the united states continues to enjoy the ability to decide what federal law requires. >> i would like to thank all of the witnesses from the first panel, the separators -- the senators from earlier, and everyone who has testified today. >> i appreciate you letting me questions.ore congresswoman duckworth, i appreciate your inspiration and your comments about being in asia. one reason we are all concerned don'tthe legality, i think there's anybody on this committee does not appreciate

deeply the thrust of this effort that when we pass laws begun by them. some of the countries that we deal with, that's not the case. i know the attorney general mentioned we are a country with a real law. it seems all of the advocates for this treaty would agree that delving in and getting it right so that we don't end up having unintended consequences is a worthy effort as we move forward over the next few weeks. is that iraqi? -- is that correct? >> they are the key tasks that have to be performed in working on the final version that will be voted on because they will spell out the explicit guidelines that will endure long past the debate that goes on this body. it seems you have offered some really constructive comments relative to some of the changes that may be made. we would love to work with you

to try to develop those and try to address some of the issues. i know we talked about the committee. in my understanding, we would have a representative but it would be temporary. it would rotate and we would have somebody on the front-end. over time, this committee could do some things to establish customary international law. opinion,a way, in your to inoculate ourselves from the evolution that can occur on these committees over time years through the roads that will protect us from customary international law that might he develop i other committees? there is a doctrine that provides state that object during the formation of a rule of international law is not down by that rule. one could imagine an understanding that the united states understands that the interpretations that the committee are not a basis for

the basis of customary international law and objects to any rule of customary international law formed on the basis of the committee's interpretation alone. i think that would be the groundwork for the claim that the united states was not owing to be bound by customary international law. the state department monitors the actions of the committees and make sure that we do object in those occasions -- aces -- ca ses where we find them objectionable. >> the committee forms a living organism. some people say, the ada standards are the gold standard today what -- today, but it could be that other laws have to be developed in our country. but you believe that customary international law, we could inoculate ourselves fully from that evolution. ic proponents of this treaty

shaking their hands -- heads up and down. an object int be from your standpoint to the advocates? >> it seems to me that one body itsot make rules behind successor in the legislature. there will be a call for oversight. the definition of disability under the ada has already been in -- already been changed and it has been in effect only 25 years. we have congress and the courts and not some ultimate executive branch decisions that are being made. >> dr., it seems to me that you agreed that the issues you are concerned about could be dealt with. is that correct?

say that i am not optimistic that we could be fully inoculated from customary international law's evolving. it does not involve us. this is something that is international opinion. it involves internationally through other court decisions such as the columbia-argentina cases. we cannot cannot delay ourselves from what the world opinions are. whatoculate ourselves from the world opinions are. i think it would be a minimum to try to protect ourselves from 25a in the treaty. i am not optimistic and objects woulduld -- an objection do it. if we think we are getting pressure now, wait until we have to go every four years before

the committee. we will get pressure to remove every one of our reservations are in >> but to remove those reservations, that would require congress to act to remove those reservations. --you think >> forgive me, i was not clear. there are a lot of folks that spoke today that think we are going to lose and midgrade credibility altogether. if we do not ratify, we will be out of the table. i think that is excessive. we will maintain our credibility. 138 countries have already ratified without us ratifying. great britain. spain has passed a comprehensive law. even without us ratifying, and time and again i hear when i am , youe u.n. from delegates are the leaders on this. we understand you have not ratified but you are still the leader.

again, i think we go down this reservationshrough -- if we are afraid by ratifying, we have gone too far. authority,e the credibility, and leadership to make a difference around the world. >> would you work constructively to do what we can to get to a ruts alleviatese most of the concerns you have? >> i would be happy to work with him. >> my final question. seem to strongly disagree with mr. meyer. the issues -- mr. meyer whether the issues he can -- he is concerned about can be resolved. possible tot is write something that would address might conserve.

i think it would be illegal under the terms of the treaty. rut -- the >> illegal where? >> illegal in any court. the question becomes whether we really ratified the treaty. i think the better view is that we adopt the treaty with a opposite towhich is the objective of the treaty, we are not a party. undertaking, or pretending to undertake the obligation and not really doing it. that whatally think what satisfy my arguments would be illegal for that reason. i haven't seen anything to date that has come close to that. given the experience of the

homeschooling community in the last year with this , where it was interpretation of international treaty law on the child standards, the same thing we are concerned about here, we don't fact we are the being mistreated by this administration right now on an immigration issue -- samever, this is the administration that told us that if you want to keep your insurance policies, you can. trusting the promises is not at a high level right now. >> if you would respond to that, mr. meyer? >> tank you, senator. --thank you, senator. to be clear, and no u.s. court is going to disregard it whether it is contrary to the treaty. in -- of nond -- of

instance in which a court has ignored one. it is mostly that another party might object that the united had reservations. there is no way that united states can and a abound to something we have not consented. it is not possible by the virtue of some party objecting that the reservation will be struck and the united states will be bound by the treaty. either the treaty would be deemed not to apply, or the answered andld be everyone would understand that united states has entered this reservation area -- reservation. it is possible that a committee the reservation was made contrary to the ideals of the treaty.

it would be up to a state party to advance that argument. , we are the country that has the gold standard. advocates would like for us to play a role throughout the world and in helping develop that gold standard around the world. you are saying that if we in our opinion absolutely innocuous -- inoculate us from outside laws, -- laws, and it is struck down, the whole treaty falls on our standpoint. we are not bound to other parts of the treaty. >> that is correct. that would court have jurisdiction to strike down a reservation. the committee does not have the authority to formally strike down a reservation.

advocates, one of the you yous, mr. general, would say that we would be better off with it hearing and being bound by this treaty with ruds that did this very thing. that would be acceptable to you as an advocate for us having those kinds of disclaimers relative to our own internal and domestic laws. >> i don't think there is any choice. what we have exemplified historically in this country is a commitment to assuring to the andd's people that benefits advances that we have made in our own country. i don't see disability rights to stronghere is an obvious commitment in this country, going back to an preceding the ada. it is no different than the other important pencils that we

have fought and died for over the years. principles that we have fought and died for over the years. i don't think that any stratagem that is designed to cut our ratification of the treaty would be unacceptable. at the same time, i think it is entirely possible to draft ruds that are satisfactory to most reasonable people in looking what the problem is. >> mr. chairman, thank you and thank all of you as witnesses for your time. >> one final comment. as we are developing a record of a i can't let go different view. there is a constant reference to the columbia case. i am disappointed that you use it in that way. assertionence to the

that columbia's high court overturned the country's rejection of the unborn invoking the non-binding comments of the u.n. treaty body as it relates to this treaty. the fact of the matter is the columbia case has nothing to do with the disabilities treaty. it is a 2006 case. ratifieddid not get -- the disability treaty for another five years after that decision. the columbia case cites a different convention, a treaty to which columbia had no reservations, no understandings, no declarations. by contrast, our ratification, it should we do so, of the act -- his ability treaty is not self acting. it could not be used for lawsuits in u.s. ports. the u.s. supreme court has upheld that.

be clear we need to about the assertions that we make when we are creating a record. i felt the responsibility to make that clear. let me thank all of the witnesses. their -- we for thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. i appreciate all the members that have attended and the thoughtfulness with which they approach the issue. appreciate and want to thank those who have aired with us and have watched the hearing from overflow room since we did not hold this in -- outside of the traditional hearing room. we appreciate your forbearance and you're watching the democratic process and the overflow rooms. he record will be open until the close of business on thursday we . this hearing is adjourned. [gavel]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> it is election day across the country in a number of states. chris christie, the incumbent republican in new jersey running ara bunon.mocrat barb --buono. polls in new jersey are closing at 8:00 eastern. terry mcauliffe is running against attorney general ken cuccinelli. someut has been high in areas, especially around richmond. all sides are estimating about a 40% turnout. polls close at 7:00 eastern.

earlier today on capitol hill, the head of the senators -- centers for medicare and medicaid, maryland tavenner, testified. >> at the end of this month, either one or two things is going to be true. either the website is going to be working smoothly for the vast majority of its users or it won't. in those cases, the administration is going to have to take quick action to make sure that individuals across the country are being treated fairly. i am sure that people are planning for this at the end of the month. if the site works, individuals will have just two weeks to shop plan. role -- enroll in a if the administrating --

administration planning on outreach for the text surge -- tech surge? stepsdoes not work, what is the administration going to take? what are they going to do to help individuals that there will not be a gap in their insurance coverage? >> yes, there is a press, our public campaign, that will match. december, january, february, and march. error no plans to delay the individual mandate. >> what if the site is not working? >> the site will be working. it is working now. what we are doing is making implements -- making performance improvements. --will enough people to get and up people be able to get on the site?

do you have numbers? >> over 700,000 people have completed applications. we'll have numbers later in more detail. >> i have called for extending the open enrollment. and waiving penalties for not buying insurance for two months until we get the site working. i think it's -- that is going to be -- and can you to be an issue that is out there. continue to be an issue that is out there. the contract to award the site for the management. was it really awarded to onpanies that had did -- bid i.t. contracts in 2007? was it not open to other companies? >> it was actually what was

called an itir contract. back in 2007 there were a list of i.t. vendors to do this kind of work. since a lot has changed 2000 722 thousand 11 or 2012. 2007 to 2011 or 2012. you are not on that contract in 2007, you would not be able to bid? >> that is correct. projectsen used for inside cms. it is a series of contractors that haven't rescreened and prequalified. i still go through a competitive bid, -- bid process. >> for the tech surge that just started recently, with those companies have been on the 2007

list of qualified contractors? >> i would have to look at the individuals inside the tech surge. certainly some of the contractors you would see on the list are common in i.t. space. on september 30, the night before the site was set to what were your expectations for the launch day? >> that is a great question. that we expectation is would go live shortly after midnight because we were doing a soft launch at midnight with the idea. we had artie much promoted that the site would go live at 8:00 a.m. of october 1. we went live shortly after midnight. we had tremendous interest even during the night. my expectation was that the site would work. it would have its customary glitches.

i think we knew all along that it would have august that needed to be handled area -- handled. we also hold a certain functionality out in order to focus more on the application process. those are the ones we have talked about publicly -- spanish, account transfers. what i expected was a site that worked with some issues. thanwe saw was more volume we had anticipated. we had anticipated pretty high- volume and we ran into the issue with the establishment of the e- mail accounts right away. we had to problem solve for that. those were two things we did not expect. >> it seemed like the information that i have been reading was that there was warning before the site was to open and that there was a lot of concern that testing had not been done. hindsight, a lots of people

are saying, why didn't the giveistration and cms forewarning about the site not living up to the expectations that were being called for and many people expected up and running and being able to access it easily? be testing around the hubble was complete. i think the testing that not -- complete.-- hub was in our analysis and our module testing, we were comfortable and did not have any high-risk recommendation. we did taste testing prior to that. >> thank you very much.

>> a portion of today's senate health committee hearing. we will show you more coverage about 10:00 eastern on c-span. you can watch anytime in our video library at www.c-span.org. >> what is the most important consider inss could 2014? 7 minute documentary to enter for your chance to win a grand rise -- for a grand prize of $5,000. need more information? go to studentcam.org. said todayt obama that u.s. businesses are deeply committed to making sure that immigration reform gets done quickly. he met with leaders at the white house today including lockheed

martin, state farm, and blackstone. >> it was a good spirit. --n we you think about it when you think about it, i have been there. was such a therapeutic medicine for the whole city. 2 -- that way was amazing. in addition to talking about the red sox, we are here to talk about embracing reform. group ofn outstanding leaders, a wide cross-section of industry, manufacturers, the .ervice sector, food, high-tech

they represent just a small cross-section of businesses across the country that are deeply committed to making sure that we get comprehensive immigration reform done and done quickly. last week we had 600 business and state leaders who came to emphasize that this is something that is not only the right thing to do but also critical to our economy. we know that the senate bipartisan bill that passed would grow the economy by 1.4 to $1.4in dollars -- trillion. it will reduce our deficits by $850 billion. these are not my estimates but independent estimates that have been made about the saga torry affect at comprehensive immigration reform will have -- salutory effect

that comprehensive immigration reform will have on the economy. if we are employing -- holding employers who are not doing the right thing accountable and we provide a pathway to citizenship for those who have paid a fine, learn english, are getting a into the back of a line, taking their responsibilities that -- ross possibilities -- responsibilities. businesses doing better. we have an opportunity, when a young people come to this , totry to study on our dime ensure that if they are able and willing, they can stay here, start businesses, contribute to our economy. this is something that has strong bipartisan report -- support. predecessor, george w.

bush, was a strong supporter of this. we have a fascinating cross- , some unlikelyle bedfellows, some very liberal folks, some very conservative folks, and all believe that now is the time to get this done. as we saw on the senate, there is a strong potential for strong up by -- strong bipartisan report -- support. there is no reason why we can't get this done before the end of the year and i continue to be , with theat leadership of many who are around this table who represent hundreds of thousands of employees and billions of dollars of assets, who are important in their communities all across the country, them flooring -- them joining up with law enforcement, clergy, citizens, making the case that hopefully folks on capitol hill

will do the right thing. although right now there has been resistance from house what is encouraging is that there are a number of house republicans that have said that we think this is the right thing to do as well. it is my estimation that we actually have the votes to get comprehensive immigration reform done in the house right now. the politics are challenging for the speaker and others and we want to make it as easy as possible for them. this is not an issue where we are looking for a political win. this is where we are looking for a substantive when for the american economy and the businesses represented here. i am very grateful for all of you who was joined us -- who have joined us, but we are going to make sure that we get that clariion call out to capitol hill. think you very much, everybody. -- thank you very much, everybody.

>> [inaudible] >> back on capitol hill, health secretary kathleen sebelius testifies tomorrow on the health care website problems and insurance coverage. she has gone on the record as saying that those problems will be fixed by the end of november. she is before the senate finance committee tomorrow at 10:00 eastern. tomorrow afternoon, a committee examines hurricane sandy relief efforts one year or it we will hear testimony from the fema and director -- fema director. 2:30ll have that live at tomorrow on c-span. earlier today, the national review hosted an election preview where panelists gave their thoughts about tonight's governor races in new jersey and virginia. this is one hour.

>> welcome to the national review's preview of the 2014 election and the discussion of the 2013 elections in virginia and new jersey. i am bob costa. we are here with a great panel to talk about the outlook of national politics. i am glad and appreciative to have a great panel with us today. some of the top analysts in the over the keyo races and themes that will be animating our discussions in the coming months. starting from the left, we have

john fund. he is a senior editor at "the american spectator." he was known for working at for decades -- working for decades at "the wall street journal." great to have you here. >> thanks, bob. one of myzza, favorite writers. afterned "the new yorker" working at "the new republic." he is on tv all the time. thank you for being here. conway.e she runs the polling -- a polling company that was started in 1995. she has an office in 19 -- new york city. she has appeared on over 1200 televisions those -- television

shows. she is active in politics and has advised countless campaigns and is one of the sharpest minds in the republican party. kellyanne, great to have you here. always great to have you. josh green, louisburg business week, another one of my favorite writers. senior national correspondent for "bloomberg businessweek." he focuses on national political coverage. he is also on twitter. josh green also writes a right -- great blog. we are here to talk politics. we are here to have a conversation about what things look like. i want to start off with 2013. it is election day. if you are in virginia this morning, a lot of people going to the polls. another big election is new jersey. chris christie looking for real action in a blue state. i think there are a lot of

that you will see with christie vs buono. chris christie has an interesting coalition. what is your take as he starts to gallop to a large when. -- win? when for chris christie this morning. i think my vote will take him over the top. tell you how different it is to live in a state without a -- as governor. i think he has done a great job be thehink what will deciding issue is, will he get a

third of the hispanic vote? he is only invited to major surrogates to campaign with him. to cleare also looking about one third of union households and democrats. i think what is key about that victory is who didn't win. let me read you this. i think these two quotes encapsulate what will happen in 2013. and yes, i am a blackberry customer. you can make fun of me if you would like. -- 10 -- kennelli cucinnelli has said this. has vetoed abortion laws and gun control act. that is actually the opening line of buono against christie.

her opening lines are that he is against a woman's right to choose. he is against marriage equality. she is going to lose embarrassingly by double digits. in new york today, the republican nominee is just about cracking 25%. on octoberl debate rights asm pro-gay- well as marriage equality. they are not. i talked with the tea party, and there were things that i disagreed and agreed with them on. witht lump with -- meet typical republicans. it is unbecoming." he may pull 30% today. i think what you are seeing in virginia is way too anti-

contraception, way to antiwoman. byistie -- ken cucinnelli lose because he did not dispel those attacks. starting tomorrow, governor christie should be the most vocal opponent against obamacare in the country because he has that credibility and he is one of the governors that refuse to set up a state exchange. he would not do it and others would not do it. i think he has great credibility, not just to ride this wave of tri-partisan support, and i can't tell you is.blue new jersey who is not someone

hamstrung by their campaign who can talk about the horrors of obamacare. >> what you make of christie's win today? the coming moving in months? >> i think it certifies him as the most certifiable potential republican presidential candidate. that is important to have. if you look at the political science literature, the candidates that tend to end up with the nomination are the ones that are most electable. look at the last three. >> they lost. >> bush didn't. it is important not to be the ted cruz. christie stands in sharp contrast to alterations in washington and that he is an executive, he has gotten things done in a way that is tangibly bipartisan.

he breaks with obama after sandy. that may be a problem with conservatives later. i think he is someone you can envision as a leader and i think he will win by a wide margin. >> john, when you look at what is happening in new jersey, barbara buono, how bad was her campaign? how many were her mistakes and was it just christie's moment? of new jerseydent as well. i don't think there was a democratic candidate that attacked it -- attracted media attention. barbara buono was a decent legislator, but almost everyone was recommending christie. exerciset became an

for the democrats -- if we're going to win, we're going to throw all our efforts into virginia. ist is why ken cucinnelli being outspent 10 to one. i agree with kellyanne very much. the what -- the number for new jersey to watch is 40, not just for hispanics, but asian voters. look at middle fax county, new jersey. towns,ve the two largest both over 100,000 people, are both 1/5 agents. -- asians. i believe that if kristi can crack 40 among asians and hispanics that will give him a calling what josh said, cards that can create a coalition that will win nationally. he won't be the only republican

out there, but he will have the most recent credibility. >> do you think the white house will come to regret how it handled new jersey? is a smart play two b? -- is a smart play to let it be? >> i don't think the white care -- white house cares. is winningiffe despite he -- despite the fact he is terry mcauliffe. christie is winning because he is chris christie. in virginia, and another cycle of two -- or two, we will be describing virginia as a blue sake. we will not be calling it a tossup or purple straight that state anymore. terry mcauliffe is benefiting from the demographic changes in that state and he got a very right-wing candidate that alienated northern virginia. in virginia, i would disagree

with what kellyanne said that the virginia races in any way a referendum on ideology. none of those issues that buono tried to raise became a part of the campaign. the campaign ended -- >> vomited on. >> that campaign ended during standing. it was over. way heelection by the dealt with sandy, he won by of -- he won by embracing obama, which a lot of people that conservatives did not like. he won by being bipartisan. there was never a race after that moment. that christie's success as a 2016 candidate will depend on next year's midterm. the model here is george w. bush in 2000. remember after 1998 -- the opening for george bush was the

disastrous midterm election for republicans. the congressional wing of the republican party had been discredited after impeachments. they lost house seats in a midterm when they should have won them. the party was looking for a savior who would push off the congressional wing. moment in the republican politics after the next midterm election, if they are looking for someone who is not a washington and does not unpopularity of house republicans or congressional republicans right now, then christie will be that guy. that is a long way away. on obamacare and christie, a big question for any republican in in 2000 16an running will be, what did you do to obamacare? as a governor, you could not ask -- not except the funding, and these -- thete in

exchanges. i understand that he excepted the funding. too much intoet the conventional wisdom, i want to challenge one think that ryan said, that virginia is destined to be a blue state. in the polls is that mcauliffe has a six-point lead. i think it is smaller than that. will controllicans both houses of the legislature. in the senate, there was no jerry man or. if mcauliffe wins a very narrowly, republicans when the attorney general ship and control both houses of legislature, why is it dentist -- destined to be a blue state? >> the governor and lieutenant governor will be democrats. >> i don't think the conventional wisdom should be set in concrete yet. >> you think the political history of virginia right now is

trending blue or red? >> it depends on what candidates the republicans nominate in the future. ryan brought up obamacare and inis an interesting question virginia. why was ken cucinnelli not able to use that to propel him forward towards victory, john? >> it is a cliché to say to a potential luer -- loser, you ran the worst possible campaign, but case, it waselli's true. he was outgunned. he never raised any money. he was always weathering under attack and never responded to social issues. -- heernated him self alternated between distancing himself from conservatives and then i'm to bring ron paul and to show up his conservatives. the fact is, i think that the

two candidates in virginia so alienated large segments of the population, that is the only reason you can have a libertarian -- libertarian candidate who has no name idea -- id who has 10% in the polls. let's go to virginia now. it is trending a little bit towards the blue. >> he said is destined to be a blue state. >> ok, if it is not already. maybe he point that -- has a point that -- wins, in cucinnelli will have two major regrets. was the first person in the country to sue on obamacare and somewhere along the way, lost his larynx. the website was a disaster.

you have 10 democratic senators saying, let's wait and see. he could have been the guy that look like the leader. he was way ahead of the curve. part of it was the government shutdown. the shutdown was seen as connected to defunding obamacare and therefore, hands-off obamacare. implementation was open -- october 1. -- this guy a house could have been a household name by speaking against obamacare. number two bank, he lost an opportunity. i don't plan on spending the first eight months of 2014 explain way to other candidates. he was extreme on abortion. whore running against a guy is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the democratic platform. no regulation, no restrictions, no attempt at all.

for virginians are not selective abortions. think -- many of them are concerned about fetal pain at 20 weeks. never took the opportunity to say, this guy got it right heard that right. this guy is extreme on abortion. never once did you hear that. .e could have been a hero instead, i never heard him say any of that. those are the two big regrets. >> you think that christie worked -- winning in new jersey and mcauliffe winning in virginia, one of the exploits -- one of the explanations is that republicans did not stress the issue of abortion enough? >> i did not say that. i said, in virginia, if ken

cucinnelli was going to be mercilessly attack, he is being attacked as we speak, why was he in there yesterday saying that someone else's from another europe -- era. ken, if you're going to be attacked that way, turn it around and say, let's talk about two different positions. you never heard that. they hunker down and said jobs, jobs, economy, economy. i would've read the barbara buono at out loud and said, if ken cucinnelli said these things you would have 1 -- it's not that simple. standoutd the fiscal -- standoff this fall affect ken cucinnelli? >> i think his campaign was crippled once it became about

sodomy laws and abortion and all of these issues that don't resonate with virginia voters. angry that this was happening, that it could not be diffuse. you factor in the o'donnell scandal that we have not talked about. >> you think that loomed over the whole thing? >> i think that ken cucinnelli was destined to lewd and that messaging -- lose and that messaging would not have affected it. but he is a frugal attorney general in a state where people rely on the government for their living. no question heard him. have a ken cucinnelli political future if he loses today? >> i don't think so. >> he is a young guy. so we have ken cucinnelli

losing, chris christie a sending in new jersey. looking ahead, we have a lot next year. i want to go to 2013 for a few moments. let's preview 2014 and the senate. interviewseone senator mcconnell, he wants to become majority leader. that is his goal. can he do it? if he is going to do it, what are the two or three king -- key races must win? thehe internet follows felix principle. in cap and faster and faster and as a result it is difficult to notice health quickly they change previous assumptions. after syria, people felt obama was on the ropes and he had shown a terrible lack of leadership. the shutdown came and republicans became the goat. there strategy failed.

-- their strategy failed. now we have obamacare. i think it is fair to say that if you walk to the white house's deepest confidence in dealing yourthis and not get ankles wet. see people not get a message out about obamacare. i think it is a defining moment because if you talk to i.t. guys, if you talk to the insurance industry people, if you talk to nonpartisan experts in health care, this disaster is going to have ripples all throughout 2014. that is why kellyanne ran reference to -- the word train wreck describes this. to show you the bubble that democrats live in, all he got

was grieved when he sounded the wreck. about train how big is the obamacare crisis become? you think they're telling us everything they need to know? no, they are not. >> mary landry is repudiating thevote against all of votes for obama care. she is desperately trying to get away from obamacare. kay hagan is getting wobbly on the issue. democrats in 2014, unless they are extremely loose states, they are trying to distance himself -- themselves from obamacare as quickly as possible. a lot of obama -- a lot of employers are going to see that in the middle of this crisis, we

are going to be able to drop expensive insurance coverage and blame it on obamacare. >> are republicans overhyping obamacare as the issue of 2014? >> i think they're making a mistake if that becomes the focus of the race and they do not address other problems in the party. introductoryome remarks and i think it is too early to draw anything meaningful from it. i think the strength of the business community. shutdown,ring the commerce groups said, we are done with the tea party. we may consider fielding our own candidates. i think the strength of the business community has been wildly exaggerated. i think they're going to lose. i do not think they're going to be be shaping force in the gop. it will be a great test today and the alabama primary.

chamber has been hugely involved in that race. i think the second factor is obamacare. it is not just the fate of the exchange website, which becomes aggressively more serious. i want to say one thing to john who i see licking his job -- chops. if you look at poll numbers, we have not seen -- >> it is down to 40% and dallas. >> it is the president versus a party. >> i think there will be a wily wile e coyote -- moment. we shouldngs i think keep an ion in 2014 is rural states like alaska.

you could end up with a rate shock. that can hurt a candidate that is running for reelection. the biggest influence that we have not talked about is the keypad -- tea party factor in republican elections. wyoming,een them in south carolina. these are mostly red states. they will probably not control the- outcome of the senate. potential fore extreme candidates to cost the gop a seat they could win. >> the tea party is not monolithic. the race and -- the race in in the tea party candidate lost. he came in third. mr. young, who is the candidate

of religious conservatives. there is a distinction between the two groups. the very important thing -- i agree that those are going to be make a issues. there is another issue -- the number 0.2. people the number of that have seen their income grow since obama came into office. i think the stagnant economy, and there is no prospect that this economy will be significantly better in the next year, especially the turmoil i thinky obamacare -- what hurt obama marginally in 2013 will hurt him in what he 14 in the senate. >> take georgia, for instance. have a credible, moderate

recognition.h name no experience. you also have key partiers like paul broun. ministration looked at george as an outside possibility. the states are changing in a way that is advantageous to democrats. if the republicans nominate two extreme candidates, they could cost themselves a seat that should be an easy one. >> thank you for working as worrying about the republican party. i really appreciate it or it -- it. i love talking about the senate. republicans have to close the gap to get the majority. what you make about this talk about the gop having a primary problem deck of you have some conservatives going after mcconnell. as one of the strongest

religious conservatives out there is that he is going to challenge the senator from texas. change for this republicans as they try to get this majority? >> they have been doing this for several cycles now. the pro-free-market party invites competition in some of their primaries. in the end, the race is the nepal -- republican nominee versus democrat. i think all of the people you advantages.ed have senator mcconnell does. yes they voted for tarp. debates onown obamacare when ted cruz wanted to keep talking. they have significant credibility in their states. in the end, they were running as a democratic nominee who will want to talk about these other things and not talk about obamacare. 2010 was mostly about obamacare and that it was only's philosophical -- only

philosophical. now it is practical. was about taking over 16 of the gdp and forcing people to -- gdp and forcing people to buy a product they never had. 2014, it is no longer practical or philosophical. it is here and now. we are seeing people that have their coverage cancel. -- canceled. there was a woman with cancer who is losing their coverage. these are read -- are real people with real consequences. i think the president is risking the two pillars that helped him get elected. get you that he is competent and -- idea that he is credible the idea that he is competent and the idea that he is credible. the democrats are playing in

georgia, then they have somehow figured out how to protect baggage in arkansas, mary landry and -- thank you for worrying about that. while we are on the obsession with -- of the left with the tea party -- let me point out what a 20 years --difference make. they were the moderate mainstream democratic group area they disbanded several years ago. hillary clinton was talking to osa, organizing for america. very progressive. that is the ideological bent of the democratic hearty. you want to talk about the tea party? us talk about was really running the democratic party. yet yet we should have a government takeover health care and withhold the truth, call it a lie, a misspeak, whatever you want.

the white house knew this wasn't going to work. the policy people knew that you could not keep your plan. the political people one and that is a significant point that will carry i want to see how many democrats don't invite the president to come in and raise money. >> let me follow up on that, following up on that point, two forces right now, president obama, senator cruz. how to they shape the 2014 races, senate democrats, senate republicans, republican candidates? >> let me talk about obamacare, just to follow up on what everyone has been saying. i agree with john if there's one finding from political science that rings true, it is voters are myopic. voters move on from big issues that we in washington think are catastrophic -- we think are world changing and a week